The War on Dissent, Episode 92

Kudos and gratitude to James Capozzola at the Rittenhouse Review for saying, succinctly, what needed to be said about that unconscionable editorial in the right-wing New York Sun, hinting darkly at the fate that awaits anyone who dares protest the Bush regime's war plans:

So the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution.

Consider this editorial yet another drop in the rising bucket of rhetorical slime that, as I've remarked previously, is part of a conservative campaign to shut down all dissent regarding not merely the war but virtually all of the Bush regime's policies. So I think it's important to address the poisonous logic at work here:

[Friedman's] point was that if terrorists strike again at America and kill large numbers of Americans, the pressure to curb civil liberties and civil rights will be “enormous and unstoppable.” What we took from that was that the more successful the protesters are in making their case in New York, the less chance they’ll have the precious constitutional freedom to protest here the next time around.

This is a vicious argument, equating protesting the war with inviting terrorists to act. But the reality is that there is no connection between the two.

Sept. 11 didn't happen because we have too many civil liberties. It happened because we were complacent and let our guard down. We had systemically awful airport security. We had a law-enforcement apparatus that did not take terrorism seriously. We had intelligence agencies that bungled and self-blinded themselves into missing numerous chances to stop the conspirators before they acted. And we had an administration that was so intent on building a missile-defense system -- and equally intent on refusing to follow in the footsteps of the Clinton administration, which had placed a great emphasis on combating terrorism -- that it actually cut the nation's counterterrorism budget before Sept. 11.

We've still taken only a few fledgling steps -- some in the wrong direction -- solving those problems. It's going to require long-term investment in the public institutions that are supposed to provide us with security, as well as the public's long-term attention on keeping reforms on track. More to the point, none of these issues will be addressed by limiting Americans' civil liberties, particularly not their right to protest the war.

Shutting down our civil liberties won't prevent or deter terrorists. It will just mean they have won.

Ben Franklin put it simplest and best: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

The entire drive to silence the debate about the war comes from conservatives who are desperate to convince the public that the Bush regimes' measures are working, and that a war with Iraq is a necessary component of the war on terrorism.

They won't win the debate, though, by threatening us.